🚀 go-pugleaf

Sounds a bit audiophile to me...

We invented 24-bit recording and playback systems because of the way bytes are stored. A 16-bit system can't quite reproduce what analog electronics are capable of reproducing, which requires about 19-20 bits. 24 bit systems (three whole bytes) are much more convenient to organise, and if you plan a converter that's linear out to 24 bits, then its performance at the levels you can actually use is going to be impeccable. So, we now have a system that can resolve everything that analog eletronics can, and that's the reason why. Like all things, it develops. Vinyl was an improvement on shellac, which was itself an improvement on wax cylinders. Each in its turn was subject to improvements along the way too - this is how development works. People strive to get things better, and sometimes this also means that the previous incarnation can be improved too, as a by-product. That's what has happened with 16-bit systems.

      Sorry to have other views than you SteveG, and that you have to resort
      to near insults to get your 'point' across.




I don't think that you are sorry at all, and you should check carefully what the definition of an insult is, because in fact it's you that are being insulting, not me. But quite frankly, it's what I've come to expect from these sorts of discussions.

      I play acoustic instruments and use that as a reference for what a really
      good sound is. Not lab tests.




The players of acoustic instruments are usually in a very bad position to judge what a good sound is, simply because for virtually all instruments, it develops away from the instrument. Since I play several different types of acoustic instrument myself, I know this very well, and as an acoustic designer, I have an intimate knowledge if what is required to achieve a good sound in a room. If you wish to persue this, you are likely to find that you are getting rapidly even further out of your depth.